OSWALD IN THE DOORWAY- the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign by Ralph Cinque

www.oswald-innocent.com

Friday, February 28, 2014

I have never known any field of endeavor with such prevalence of the use of aliases as JFK assassination research. There is a "Vincent Bugliosi" who is active right now on McAdams' forum, but I don't know if he is the Vincent Bugliosi of fame or not. He said that Doorman is a perfect match to Lovelady, and I told him he had to submit the image of Lovelady he was referring to. He did. And what he submitted was the 1967 image of Lovelady which was taken for the 4 hour CBS JFK Special.However, it wasn't used in the special. In fact, in the whole 4 hours, they never even mentioned the controversy surrounding Doorman and Oswald and Lovelady. They pulled the plug on the whole thing. They bailed. Somebody must have wisely realized that there was more to lose than to gain by going into this. But, the CBS picture of Lovelady posing in the doorway as Doorman persists. And that's the one that Bugliosi thinks matches Doorman. We should first note that Bugliosi had images of Lovelady from November 22, 1963 that he could have picked. So, why didn't he use one of them? Doesn't it make more sense to use such an image? After all, Doorman was photographed on November 22, 1963, and he was either Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963 OR he was Billy Lovelady on November 22, 1963. People change over time and throughout life, don't they? So, why not use an image of the man from the same day? Is there any excuse not to? So, why didn't Bugliosi use an image from 11/22/63? Simply put, he likes this other one better; he thinks it makes a better match. But remember that the picture was taken with planning, with intention; it wasn't a spontaneous picture. It was taken to SELL the idea that he was Doorman. Wouldn't a spontaneous picture from that day have been much more genuine to the honest broker? Of course. But, let's look at Bugliosi's choice anyway.

Bugliosi said that Lovelady matches Doorman perfectly, but it's not true. Lovelady's shirt is plaid, but Doorman's is not. His has no horizontal and vertical lines crossing and forming boxes. Not one box! So, the shirt pattern is a disconnect. And Doorman's t-shirt is notched whereas Lovelady's is round. So, neither the shirts nor the t-shirts match between Doorman and Lovelady. However, the clothing match is perfect between Oswald and Doorman: the look, the lay, the fit, and the hang of the outer shirts match, and so do the notched t-shirts. We don't see the vague splotchyness on Oswald's shirt that we see on Doorman's, but on Doorman, it's simply due to light reflection plus some haze and distortion. That's all it is. Oswald wins the clothing comparison by a country mile. And note also that the shirt construction, including the size of the open sprawl, matches between Oswald and Doorman, while the sprawl on Lovelady is smaller and looks staged, like it's just something he did to acquire the Doorman look. Do you really think Lovelady primped himself like that on 11/22/63?OK, so the clothes definitely go to Oswald. What about the bodies? Here we have to note that Lovelady lost quite a lot of weight after the assassination. The FBI weighed him on Feb 29, 1964 and found him to be 170 pounds. He doesn't look that heavy in the picture here. Oswald at the time of the assassination was taller than Lovelady and weighed only 131 pounds. So, he was a lot thinner. We're talking of about a Laurel and Hardy difference. Therefore, the use of this latter day Lovelady who had slimmed down considerably in 4 years is not a fair comparison. It only matters how much Lovelady weighed in 1963, not in 1967. So, you don't get to go with that, Vince. You are going to have to pick a picture from 11/22/63.What about the faces?

From above the eyes to the top of the head, Doorman is Lovelady, but from the eyes downward he is Oswald. It's Oswald's square chin, Oswald's ear, and Oswald's nose. But, it's Lovelady's forehead, hairline and top of his head. They moved Lovelady's "cap" over. And of course, they didn't have that picture; they worked off this one:

So, in the final analysis, Bugliosi picked one of the better pictures to use, which took advantage of Lovelady's substantial weight loss after the assassination. But just think: CBS still decided to table it. They, apparently, didn't have as much confidence in it as Vince. And to say that the 1967 CBS image of Lovelady- a contrived image- is a perfect match to Doorman is just plain false. Overall, Oswald still makes a decidedly better match. And as soon as you realize that Doorman's image was falsified by the transference of Lovelady's "cap" to Doorman, then the ruse is up completely.

If I knew that flooding CE 369 with light would remove some ink, why did I do it? That's what Robin Unger wants to know. I did it in the hope that it would bring out the shape and contour and design of the head of Frazier's arrow, which it did.

So, that's why I did it, and it wasn't a bad idea. It's awfully hard to see a drawing that is black on black, and this helped a lot. However, it is important to realize that the modified version doesn't actually exist. If you go to the National Archives and examine the actual physical CE 369, it is going to look like the above. In fact, it's going to be smaller than the above, since the above was enlarged. But, the above has all the features of a single arrow, namely a long vector line and then two short diagonal arm lines. You could call it a vector line with a vee at the end of it. There are 3 lines to a drawn arrow. An arrow is not a wedge, which consists of only 2 lines.

An arrow is drawn by first drawing the vector line, and then the arm lines are added. And as I said yesterday, since it involves lifting the writing instrument, the possibility of a sliver of space exists, and it does happen, but it means nothing. Here are drawn arrows on Google, and they all consist of the vector line and the two diagonals.

Some are drawn one-dimensionally, while others are drawn two-dimensionally, but it's the same idea. I think we can be 1000% certain that Frazier and Lovelady drew theirs one-dimensionally. There is no reason to think otherwise. There was no need to get fancy. But now, I shall ask Robin Unger a question, and it is a very simple and straightforward question: Do you, or do you not, endorse bpete's claim about two merged arrows?

So far, on McAdams' forum, 22 people have viewed my announcement about bpete's great discovery of finding Lovelady's arrow, but nobody has commented. I thought at least Robin Unger or O'Blase' or maybe Klip-Klop would have voiced their support. Maybe they still will, but if they had to mull it over, what good is that? But, one good thing has come of it: Max Holland heard about it, and he has announced that he is undertaking a new tv special for National Geographic called "The Lost Arrow". Can you believe it? I hope not because I'm just kidding. But one nice thing that has happened for real is that if you do a Google search about "Lovelady's arrow on CE 369" you get taken to MY discovery of Lovelady's arrow, the tail of which can be seen on the forearm of Black Hole Man.https://www.google.com/search?q=Lovelady%27s+arrow+on+CE+369&rlz=1C1FGGD_enUS501US507&oq=Lovelady%27s+arrow+on+CE+369&aqs=chrome..69i57.4153j0j8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8There is no rational basis to assume that that discreet mark was an accidental artifact or an unintended swipe. It looks precise, and it looks deliberate. It's neat; it's tidy; it's clear. It does not look like noise.

Notice how the angle of it is the same as Frazier's. Lovelady was probably influenced by Frazier. But in addition, the angle of the forearm also encouraged the angle of the arrow. Can you see that the line is perpendicular to the forearm? It's only natural to do it that way. But, it makes no sense to think that what we see on the left are two arrows. It's about communication, and why would they try to mis-communicate? It would be like they went out of their way to deceive people and cover up something that they or at least Joseph Ball was happy about. Really, bpete's idea is as birdbrained as a Wee Cock Sparrow.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

bpete, stubborn child that he is, is sticking to his story that after 50 years he, in his brilliance, finally discovered Lovelady's arrow.

bpete is still claiming that, unbeknownst to everybody, there are two arrows there. And he says that "there is no connection of ink between the two. None." Oh really? Let's look at it up closer:

It's a bit of stretch, I'd say, to say that they're disconnected.Note that bpete wants to use the altered, manipulated version that was FLOODED WITH LIGHT. But, flooding it with light has the effect of removing some ink. So, why does he want to use an altered, manipulated version? It's because he's a fucking punk and God-damn fucking Kennedy-killer, that's why. Why did I create it in the first place? I created it in the hope that it would improve the visibility of the black on black, so that we could better see the SHAPE and the DESIGN of what Frazier drew. And it worked in that respect: we can see the the left arm of Frazier's arrow is vertical and almost parallel with the white column, while the right arm is pretty-much L-shaped.

bpete is trying to claim that there is an interruption at the head of the arrow, but really it is just a little bolus of haze. And as you can see there are similar boluses of haze throughout the image. Should we assume that there were interruptions in the big hair of the black woman? I ask because the boluses on her look similar to the bolus on the arrow.

I pointed out that Frazier's arrow wasn't drawn in one stroke. It was done by lifting the marker from the photo and setting it down again. So, even if there was a tiny sliver of space between the two, who gives a fuck? It means nothing! And bpete has done this kind of shit before, and I mean this very kind of shit. We were on Education Forum, him in his Duncan MacRae persona, and we were going at it over Doorman's t-shirt, and in order to show that it really was not vee-ish at all, MacRae blew it up until the margin was jagged and tooth-like and then submitted it. He actually did that. I could do it too, but since it wouldn't be his exact work, I won't. But, I don't mind describing what he did: by the time he was finished, he had the margin of Doorman's t-shirt looking like a staircase. And I take it as more evidence that bpete is Duncan MacRae; it's just like him to do this shit.

In the final analysis, we have to go back to the untouched image. After all, that's what was rendered. That's what was proffered. That's what went into the official record. And this is what it is:

It would have been AWFUL if Joseph Ball had submitted that knowing that it consisted of two arrows. Why would he have done that? For goodness sake, he wanted it to be two arrows pointing at Doorman. It's what he was aiming for. It was what he was hoping for. Think of how much more impressive it would have been if there were two visible, distinct, and distinguishable arrows pointing to Doorman as Lovelady. Now consider how easy it would have been for Ball to have accomplished that. Why would he have hid it? Why would he have let the world see it as just one arrow? And for 50 years the world has seen it as just one arrow. Until Duncan MacRae came up with this brilliant idea, nobody gave two arrows the slightest thought or consideration. It sailed right over the heads of everybody in the world. Didn't Joseph Ball realize that it was going to sail over the heads of everybody in the world? So, why didn't he do something about it? What are you going to do now, MacRae? After all, this is a big discovery. You've got a major coup going here. You've just broken the case. The discovery of Lovelady's arrow after 50 years? 50 fucking years! That's half a century, Man! It took half a century for somebody to see it, and that somebody was YOU. How proud you must be. But, you've got to act on it, Man. You need to contact the National Archives. How about the Newseum? They could make it into an exhibit. Then you should contact Vincent Bugliosi because he could add it to next edition of Reclaiming History. The same for Gerald Posner with Case Closed. How about Tink Thompson in 6 seconds? You've got links to him on your bpete site. This is too big to leave within the realm of the little war that's raging between Ralph Cinque and Duncan MacRae. You need to get the word out- to the historians and to the world. But don't worry, I started a thread about it on McAdams' forum. I'm eager to see how many people step up to endorse what you claim to have found. Aren't you? And I don't mean, O'Blase'. That little shit is just a wise-cracker of me and a brown-noser of you. And I won't be the least bit surprised if Robin Unger endorses your new find too. Maybe Joseph Backes will go for it as well. Hell, it doesn't bother him that you have Oswald "locking and loading" on the 6th floor, so why should he be reticent about this? But just between you and me, getting those guys to endorse you is like getting Larry and Curly to endorse Moe. How far do you think it is going to go, MacRae? You think it's going to change the way CE 369 is reported and discussed and understood? Psst. I've got news for you: you found nothing, and nothing is going to come of it.

There is a report that soon after the assassination as he was leaving, Lee Oswald interacted with Jack Ruby outside the TSBD. There were some children who saw it, and one of them reported it to her mother, who spoke to police. For obvious reasons, it was never followed up. I rate the chances of it having happened as very good. I don't think there is any doubt that Jack Ruby was in Dealey Plaza during the shooting. The whole idea that he was at the office of the Dallas Morning News is just plain ridiculous. He was ID'd by multiple persons in the Plaza before the motorcade, including delivering weapons. Julia Ann Mercer is one such person who saw him. And don't forget that there is also Fedora Man in the Altgens photo, and I rate the chances of him being Jack Ruby as extremely good. I also think that obscuring him was the reason that the Altgens Woman and Boy were added to the photo. And they were definitely added because she could not possibly be holding him to give him the elevation that he undeniably has.

And there is absolutely no question that Ruby and Oswald knew each other. Multiple witnesses saw them together in multiple locations at multiple times. Therefore, if Ruby was lingering outside after the assassination (and Victoria Adams is another person who saw him; she said he was "barking orders and acting like a cop") and if Oswald came out to leave and he saw Ruby, don't you think they would have exchanged a few words, especially after what happened? But, my question to those who think that LHO was the figure Roger Craig saw scurrying to the Nash Rambler, getting in, and darting off, what do you make of it? According to Craig, Oswald came running out and went right to that waiting car. It leaves no time for him to converse with Jack Ruby.

Robin Unger is getting all excited because the DPD letter described Oswald as standing "on the sidewalk" intead of "in the doorway."Unger, it was just an offhand remark by the officer who wrote the letter. We know what he was referring to, and it had to be the figure in the Altgens photo. So, whether he knew it or not, he was talking about the doorway even though he said the sidewalk. Jesus Christ, you are juvenile, Unger. Grow up!

Yes, this letter concerning Lovelady's altercation is a find. It shows that 5 months later, there was still avid interest in him and capturing a picture of him. Why? It's because people thought the government was lying in saying that he was Doorman. And they thought that because Doorman looks too much like Oswald to be anyone else but Oswald. He's even dressed like Oswald.

Why did Lovelady get so mad? Hey, I was in the same situation. We were making quite a scene in Dealey Plaza with our Altgens reenactment. The tourists seemed quite fascinated, like it was a media event. It was a bit of a spectacle. And without even asking me, some woman came up and took my picture. I didn't care. Maybe she was CIA, but I still don't care. I'm sure they know what I look like. I'm sure they've got a big file on me. But, in Lovelady's case, he got pissed off, and it was because it had happened before and repeatedly, and he was sick of it. Plus, he knew he wasn't Doorman. Apparently, there was quite a stir about the Doorman issue back then, although it eventually died down. But now it's back and with a vengeance. And it is NEVER going to be sidelined again. It's back for good, and it is going to lead the way to JFK truth. Stop the lies! Oswald outside!

Backes refuses to explain how the Towner Woman is holding that baby. He knows she's not using her left arm because she is waving at the President with it. And, he can hardly say she's using her right arm because there is no sign of it in the picture. How could her right arm be going around that baby without us seeing it? In fact, there is a contradiction in the picture because we know her "halo" corresponds to her flicking left hand, yet there is no sign of her left arm going up. In fact, it seems like her left arm is going down and reaching over to grasp the baby, although it can't be.

Doesn't it look like her left shoulder is visible in a way that corresponds to her left arm coming down? And why don't we see her left arm going up, something like this?

That is, supposedly, what is happening, so why don't we see it? But look at it again larger because you really get the sense that neither arm is supporting that baby:

Wouldn't an honest researcher be concerned about this? Why doesn't it concern Joseph Backes? When you see an incongruity in a photo, you question the authenticity of the photo. And that's especially true in the JFK assassination because faking and lying and fabricating is what the whole thing was about. Backes thinks they faked a bus ride and a cab ride for Oswald, but he doesn't think they messed with any of the images. None! They're all pure as the driven snow to Joseph Backes, and he'll defend them to the end.The Towner Woman and Baby are fake. They were added to the film. And there is no doubt about it.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

A huge find today by Richard Hooke: a Dallas PD letter concerning an altercation on Elm Street involving Billy Lovelady and a guy named Beckman. The date was April 10, 1964, so three days after Lovelady's interrogation by Joseph Ball.

So, Beckman claimed to have been hired by Clay Felkner of New York City to photograph Lovelady. Remember that it was right at that time that multiple photographers had been commissioned to try to capture an image of Lovelady. Fortunately, the one commissioned by Mark Lane succeeded:

So, the fact is that lots of people thought that the Man in the Doorway was Oswald- despite official pronouncements to the contrary. And notice the reference to Marguerite Oswald. As you know, I don't think that that old woman, who looked about 70, was the biological mother of 24 year old Lee Harvey Oswald.

But, I don't doubt that she raised him and acted like his mother. So, who better than his mother to pick him out in a picture? People from all over realized that Oswald was the Man in the Doorway, and that included the people who said so and a whole lot of people who didn't- for fear of their lives. It has truly reached the point that denying it any more is just plain ludicrous. It's Oswald. It's Oswald. It's Oswald.

Here is the version of CE 369 that bpete uses on his site. The underline in red is his doing.

And then when we crop it down to the doorway, we get this:

That is one arrow, and there is no disconnect. Again, there is the sideways 7 which looks like it was drawn in one stroke. And then the lower arm of the arrow, which I call the right arm, was drawn separately, and it has quite a bend in it. But, it's all one arrow. It is totally unjustified to assume that it's two. It's unjustified on the basis of what we see and what we know of human nature. In a situation like this- and especially in a situation like this with the great importance that it had- the need for precision and clarity would have been recognized and observed. No way would anybody sneak his arrow in with the other guy's. That would be deliberately hiding the arrow. Odds are great that if Lovelady had wanted to draw his arrow to Doorman, he'd have done it like this:

Remember that Ball instructed Lovelady to draw it in the dark. I drew it in grey, but that was just to make it easier to see.

Why did Joseph Ball tell Lovelady to draw it in the black with a black marker, knowing that that would obscure it? It's because he wanted to obscure it. I don't see how there can be any doubt about that.

The big question is: when Lovelady drew his little arrow to Black Hole Man to indicate himself, he drew it in the black enclosure of BH Man's arms, but was the tail overlapping the flesh-colored forearm really an accident? Or did he deliberately leave a tell-tale sign that so that his mark on the photo would be detectable? Or was it more a subliminal thing where he didn't decide consciously to do it, but something deep inside compelled him to leave a visible mark? I don't know, and we may never know.

Mother of God! It's true! The evil idiot! bpete is actually trying to get away with this! Realizing that finding Lovelady's arrow was a necessity, he has decided that he can get two for the price of one. He thinks he can get away with claiming that Lovelady drew his arrow right on top of Frazier's.

When, in the history of people and photographs, has anyone ever done that? What possible reason would anyone have to do that? And if he had done it, why would Joseph Ball respond by saying that you have an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing to you? How could that possibly be an apt description?And how many times have I told this dumb fuck that he can't draw in the area of examination? He can point to it; he can write about it; but he can't defile it. Look at it undefiled:

Everybody knows that, in it's most rudimentary form, an arrow has got three parts: a base, a left arm, and a right arm. bpete has decided that Frazier drew his with just a base and a left arm.

And this is what Lovelady drew, according to bpete:

But, the image he's working with is a manipulated image- manipulated by me. I flooded it with light. The purpose of my doing that was to bring out the black on black. But that's not how CE 369 looks. Rather, it looks like this:

For 50 years, until yesterday, everybody who ever looked at that saw it as one arrow. But yesterday, bpete decided that there are two arrows there. But, let's look at it up-close but without manipulating it; just cropping it.

There really is no disconnect. It's one arrow, but it was drawn in two pen-strokes. Frazier drew the sideways 7. Then, he lifted the pen off the paper and made a separate mark for the right arm. That's all that it is. That's the only reason why, when flooded with light, it looks a little disconnected. But, that's ONLY when you flood it with light, as I did. To the naked eye in its natural state, there is no disconnect at all. It's just one arrow drawn in two strokes. If we were going to take it as two arrows, it would mean that not only did Joseph Ball not identify and distinguish the two arrows drawn by two different men, showing whose was whose, but he deliberately let one arrow be completely subsumed and obscured by the other, such that everybody who looked at it, for 50 years, until yesterday, save for the brilliance of bpete, took it as one arrow. If Joseph Ball got the result he wanted, which was two arrows indicating Lovelady which both pointed to Doorman, wouldn't he want to make it visible? Wasn't Lovelady confirming Frazier's arrow noteworthy? Wouldn't Ball want to share it with the High Heavens? Wouldn't Ball want it to show? To jump off the page and into your eyes? Let's go in closer yet:

How can anyone in his right mind take that to be two arrows? How can anyone in his right mind think that in a government investigation, commissioned to shed light on the facts, to illuminate, that such an obscuring and confusing would be allowed? Why would Lovelady do it that way, and why would Joseph Ball let it pass? And why would Joseph Ball describe the above as "an arrow in the dark and one in the white"? Ball: You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you.How is that an apt description of the above? Why would anyone describe the above like that?What's clear is that this is just a sick fuck way of looking at it by a man who is paid to be a modern-day Kennedy-killer.No, bpete. You didn't have a stroke of genius yesterday. You didn't see something that nobody else saw in 50 years. You just lied again, as you have lied so many times. You are just a sick fuck paid mercenary Kennedy-killer who, whore that you are, will say anything to serve and protect the murderers of John F. Kennedy. Did you clear this with your superiors before you went with it? If so, then they are as hapless as you are. And this time you have really outdone yourself. This is so stupid, so asinine, so foolish and inane, that you have exposed not just your evilness, but your utter stupidity. God damn you, you filthy, blood-soaked Kennedy-killer. Ptui!

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

bpete: How can you begin to assume that you can tell the age of the child on theleft and the blur on the right?

Could anyone be that stupid? At least, bpete admitted that the Altgens Boy is a "child" and not a baby. But on the right, regardless of the blur, we can assign a very young age to the figure, and in the vicinity of one year old, and that's from its size, its form, its formlessness, its lack of development, its utter passivity and lack of tone. In fact, it doesn't even look human. You see nothing to confirm that it is a human being. It's just two blobs: one orange and one white. They were added to the film to invent a baby. And there is absolutely no way the young'un on the right could be the young'un on the left. It is insane to even suggest it.

You're wrong, bpete. And the FBI was right when they reported that Lovelady said he was wearing a red and white striped shirt and blue jeans on the day of the assassination. Then bpete says that there is "ample evidence" Lovelady wore a plaid shirt. But, the only "evidence" for that are blatantly fraudulent movies that were modified after the assassination, and in some cases years after, or even decades after, and all used impostors who neither looked like Lovelady nor like each other. It's a fucking circus. And as Harold Weisberg told us way back in 1966, Doorman's shirt is neither striped nor plaid. That's how hapless and hopeless their case is. And yet, here it is 2014, and we still have to listen to mean, mealy-mouthed little fucks like bpete lie disgustingly. The fucking moron is unable to see the landslide difference in the way Joseph Ball handled Danny Arce than how he handled Billy Lovelady- ON THE SAME DAY! Hey, bpete! Ball didn't ask Arce to draw any fucking arrows. He just pointed to Doorman and asked him who he was. Why didn't he do the same with Lovelady?Ball asked Lovelady if he was in the picture. Lovelady said yes, but he could have added that, "Yes, I'm the guy in the doorway who people think resembles Oswald." Or something like it. And get this: the idiot bpete assumes that Lovelady was oblivious to why Ball brought up the Altgens photo, as if the Doorman controversy was unknown to him, as if he had no clue as to where Ball was going with it. Memo to bpete: The moment Ball took out the Altgens photo and asked Lovelady if he was in it, Billy knew instantly that the question of Doorman's identity was on the table- you dumb fuck. If someone asks you whether you are in a photograph, it's only natural and normal to point out who you are- if the answer is yes. You see, it's what you call a "leading question" because you know there is more to it than that. NOBODY would just want to just know if you were in it, as a point of fact. The implied full question is:"Are you in this picture, and if so, which figure are you?"All of that is implied, bpete, you dumb fuck. And in a natural, normal conversation, this is how it would go down:Tom: Are you in this picture?Sally: Yes, I sure am; that's me; right there. (pointing)And even in a federal commission interview that's how it would go down. There is no reason to think otherwise. So yes, the whole damn exchange was very weird, and don't try to deny it. There is simply no excuse for why Joseph Ball was direct with Danny Arce, asking him directly who Doorman was but indirect with Billy Lovelady, asking him if he was in the picture and then proceeding to arrow-drawing. It's bull shit! Even with Fraizer, Ball had him announce it verbally before they moved on to arrow-drawing. But on April 7, it was the same question asked of two men just an hour apart but handled in very different ways. And even after Lovelady drew his arrow, note that Ball never articulated the results for the court reporter. Ball never said anything like: "Let the record show that Mr. Lovelady drew an arrow to the same figure that Wesley Frazier drew an arrow to, specifically, the man on the left side as we view the picture wearing the unbuttoned long-sleeved shirt and white t-shirt."And why didn't Ball have both Frazier and Lovelady initial their arrows? It's very weird that he didn't. Why the hell wouldn't he? And why did Ball instruct Lovelady to draw his arrow in the dark when the writing instrument was black? We're talking about black on black. Why did Joseph Ball have Billy Lovelady draw an arrow black on black? Isn't the whole purpose of drawing an arrow for the sake of it being seen?So yes, I have a problem- a big problem- with Ball's method because he used a different method with Arce than he did with Lovelady just an hour later. And if you, bpete, have a problem with my having a problem with it, then here's spit in your eye and fuck you!

Duncan MacRae (bpete) is every bit as stupid as Joseph Backes:

Who is kidding who here, MacRae? Are you playing games with yourself or are you just plain stupid? What Joseph Ball wanted to know was whether Lovelady claimed to be Doorman. I'll say it again: What Joseph Ball wanted to know was whether Lovelady claimed to be Doorman. So, why not ask him directly?

Ball: This guy standing next to the wall (he points) whose face is the only face we see, who is wearing an unbuttoned, sprawled-open outer shirt over an exposed white t-shirt, who is he?

Why the hell couldn't Ball have simply asked Lovelady that? It is what he wanted to know, and there is no doubt about that. So, why not go for the jugular? Why not cut to the chase? Why not get to the bottom line?

Furthermore, that is exactly what Joseph Ball just an hour earlier with Danny Arce, you dumb fuck! Why the change? If it was reaonable for Arce then why not for Lovelady?

What is your excuse? I want a fucking reason as to why he handled each of them so differently concerning the exact same matter.

Then bpete tries to say that the arrow I found is just a "spot" on the photograph. And note that this particular version of CE 369 was lifted from bpete's site. I just cropped it and enlarged it.

How do you know it's just a "spot"? And what is it a spot of? That is nothing but an arbitrary speculation on bpete's part. Notice that the mark is angled exactly like Frazier's.

An accidental smudge or spot or speck would not be as neat as that. And it would also likely not be as small and contained as that. That has all the look of a discreet, deliberate mark, and unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary, we should assume that is what it is.

What the fuck? He has never proven that it's a "spot". And talk about being a liar, how can there be two arrows pointing to Doorman if we don't see two arrows pointing to Doorman? There is only one arrow pointing to Doorman. Explain that, bpete:

bpete wants to know why Lovelady's arrow to Black Hole Man got lighter when I lightened the picture. Actually, he asked why it disappeared, but that was shit-faced lie from the shit-faced mother-fucker. It got lighter, but it didn't disappear.

It's because I flooded the picture with light, bpete. Lovelady not only drew his arrow small, he drew it with a light hand. Frazier pressed harder. And now for the grand finale, bpete posted this:

I hope bpete is not suggesting that Lovelady drew his arrow over Frazier's, that there are two arrows over there on the left side. God help him if he's trying to claim that. But, I presume he simply means that we can see the head of Frazier's arrow, but we can't see the head of the arrow I attribute to Lovelady.

It's true that we can only see the tail of Lovelady's arrow and not the head. But remember that Lovelady was instructed by Joseph Ball to draw his arrow in the dark. I'm saying that we just got lucky that the tail of it overlapped Black Hole Man's flesh-colored forearm. Lovelady wasn't pressing very hard either, but I am sure that if his arrowhead showed in the black space of Black Hole Man's arm enclosure, which is where it was, that Joseph Ball-or someone else- smeared it out with the same marker. But, there was nothing they could do about the part that overlapped the forearm. Maybe they thought nobody would notice. Well, they were wrong.

I have been pointing out for a long time that the Towner Woman is waving at the President constantly with her left hand above her head. Yet, in the still frame, it looks as though her left arm is coming over to support the baby. But, we know it's not. So, let's just get rid of it. We have the right to do that because it is definitely misrepresenting the situation. It is adding confusion instead of clarity. So, I took it out, and here's what's left:

Now how is she holding the baby? She's not holding it with her left arm, and she's not holding it with her right? So, what is holding the baby up? Is the baby just hooking its chin over the mother's shoulder? It's a ridiculous question, but it's also a ridiculous picture. Yet, it is the essence of the Towner Woman and Baby.

Who wants to defend this crap? Anybody? If so, defend it. Actually defend it. What exactly is holding that baby up?

I visited someone in the hospital today, and I had to wait around some because of a minor procedure being done, and while I waited, I picked up a People magazine. There, I saw this image of actress Reese Witherspoon holding her child. Notice that she is using two arms; one is wrapped around the kid's waist, and the other is grasping his thigh. This is not a particularly efficient way to do it, and I doubt that she would ever stand and watch a parade holding him that way. But, at least she is using two arms.

And when we compare to the Towner Woman and Baby, we get this:

It looks like the Towner woman is holding the kid with her left arm, but she definitely is not. She is waving at the President with her left arm. So, where is her right arm? Why don't we see her right arm around that baby in the same way that we see Reese's left arm wrapped around that boy? How can the Towner Woman be holding the baby at all? People: that Towner Woman is not real. She is fake. She is a cartoon. They added her and the baby to the film, and it is a smoking gun.

It is laughable; it is ludicrous; and it is lamentable to think that Lovelady ever said the things attributed to him by the FBI. The only authentic part of the statement was when they admitted that Doorman resembled Lee Harvey Oswald. They said Lovelady IMMEDIATELY identified himself as Doorman, and that there was NO QUESTION about it- and not just no question but no question WHATSOEVER about it.Wow! Lovelady really talked like that?????Well, why didn't he talk that way to Joseph Ball?????Joseph Ball never asked him directly if he was Doorman- in fact, he carefully skirted the issue. But, if Lovelady had been that outspoken, that adamant, and that insistent with the FBI, wouldn't he have acted the same with Joseph Ball? Where was all that confidence he had in proclaiming his Doormanity to the FBI? Lovelady wasn't stupid. This lowly warehouse worker rose up to become the owner of his own trucking company in Denver. It was a rags to riches story. And although his productive output stopped at the tender age of 41 because he had a "heart attack", his widow Patricia lived long and died a wealthy woman with extensive real estate holdings across Colorado. So, on April 7, 1964 when Joseph Ball interviewed him, Lovelady had to know what Ball wanted to know, which was: who was Doorman. So, why didn't Lovelady just blurt it out? Why didn't he state confidently and with attitude that he was Doroman, as he supposedly did with the FBI? And why didn't Old Joe simply ask Lovelady what he wanted to know? He asked him if he was in the photograph, and Lovelady responded yes. So, why didn't he follow it up with, "Which one are you?" OR "Point to yourself." Instead, he went with this: Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on that
picture? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Take a pen or pencil and
mark an arrow where you are. Who does shit like that? He didn't do shit like that with Danny Arce: Mr. BALL. Just 1 minute, I want to show you a picture. I show you Commission
Exhibit No. 369. I show you this picture. See this man in this picture? Mr.
ARCE. Yeah. Mr. BALL. Recognize him? Mr. ARCE. Yes, that's Billy
Lovelady. Why the Hell didn't Joseph Ball treat Lovelady the same way he did Arce? He interviewed them both on the same day: April 7, 1964. Arce went first at 2:15, and Lovelady followed at 3:50. So, why didn't Ball say, "see this man? who is he?" to Lovelady? And just as telling, why didn't Lovelady be direct with Ball? As soon as Ball asked him if he was in the photo, why didn't Lovelady say, "Yes, I'm the guy people have been talking about; the one standing at the top whom people think looks like Oswald. But, that really was me." If Lovelady has been so outspoken with the FBI, where was all that verve and personality and declarartion when he was with Ball?And look how Ball followed it up with Arce; he kept hitting it: Mr. BALL. Now, there is only one face that is clearly shown within the
entrance-way of the Texas School Book Depository Building, isn't there? Mr.
ARCE. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. And only one face of a person who is standing on
the steps of the Depository Building entrance? Mr. ARCE. Yeah. Mr. BALL.
And that one man you see there--- Mr. ARCE. Yes, that's Billy Lovelady.

But, it was very different with Lovelady where Ball was in a hurry to change the subject:

Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on that
picture? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Take a pen or pencil and
mark an arrow where you are. Mr. LOVELADY - Where I thought the shots are?
Mr. BALL - No; you in the picture. Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, here (indicating).
Mr. BALL - Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow
in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the
picture was taken?

Where were you when the picture was taken? What the fuck? Ball could see where he was. And look how it went down with Frazier:

Mr. BALL - Do you recognize this fellow? Mr. FRAZIER - That is Billy, that
is Billy Lovelady. Mr. BALL - Billy? Mr. FRAZIER - Right Mr. BALL -
Let's take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy
Lovelady? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - That is where you told us you
were standing a moment ago. Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - In front of
you to the right over to the wall? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.

Do you recognize this fellow? Sure, that's what Ball wanted to know of Frazier but why didn't he ask that of Lovelady?

It's because Joseph Ball was scared shitless to ask that of Lovelady. It's because Joseph Ball must have been warned by the FBI not to ask that of Lovelady because he was NOT a good witness. It means that all that bravado the FBI attributed to Lovelady in proclaiming himself to be Doorman was pure bull shit. The fuckers lied!

And then there is the arrow: Lovelady's arrow.

Keep in mind that if bpete denies that that is Lovelady's arrow, he has a very simple, easy, and direct recourse: to find an alternate arrow for Lovelady.

We know his arrow is there. We know where to look for it. We know it should be visible to some extent- even if drawn completely in the black.

Why doesn't bpete just find Lovelady's arrow?

It's because the little shit can't. You think he hasn't looked?

The mark I found is the only other mark on the photograph. So, it must be the tail of Lovelady's arrow.

Look at this version in which I played around with the lighting:

Notice that now you can see the head of Frazier's arrow in its entirety. No problema. It's plain as day, right?

If Lovelady had drawn an arrow in the black to Doorman, don't you think we'd see it? At least partially? To some extent? And don't you think that he would have taken his cue from Frazier and drawn his arrow about the same size? So, why did he draw it so small?

It's because Lovelady didn't want to add insult to injury. He knew he was disappointing Ball- and that's putting it mildly. He knew he was freaking the hell out of Ball. But, he wasn't going to upset the man more than necessary, and drawing a big arrow would have been that much worse. So, he kept it small.

This comes down to default. If this is the only other mark on the photo, then it must be Lovelady's arrow. And, it IS the only other mark on the photo.

My hunch is that Billy Lovelady wasn't a very good liar, and they knew it. Sure, he posed in a plaid shirt a few times, but he didn't have to open his mouth to do that. Why didn't they let him do live interviews with reporters? Why didn't the HSCA drag him to DC and interview him for the record? They did it with others. But, they knew about Joseph Ball's dog and pony show with Lovelady, and they weren't going to go through that again. And even if he was willing to claim to be Doorman, maybe he wasn't very convincing about it. And maybe that's why he wound up suddenly dead at the tender age of 41 shortly before the HSCA Final Report was issued. Dead men tell no tales.

Monday, February 24, 2014

Joseph Backes is back from another stay at Trembling Hills, but get something straight, Backes: I asked you a question. That's where we were. I asked you how the Towner Woman was holding up that baby. We know her left arm was raised high and waving at the President. So that only leaves her right arm. But the problem is that we don't see her right arm going around the baby. It is completely out of sight.

And here's the movie so that you can see that she was waving at the Prez with her left hand the whole time:

So, we know her left arm was out of commission, so even though it might look to you like her left arm is coming across to support the baby, it's not. It can't be. But try to figure out how she could be holding that baby exclusively with her right arm without us being able to see it.

That halo on the Mother's head is actually her left hand. I stopped the film.

That tab extending up from her head is her left hand flicking away.

Do you see that flicking hand? Do you see how constant it is? So, that's what that is. Why does it look like a halo in the still frame? I don't know because I didn't make the still frame. But, I'd say that they doctored it severely. In any case, it's clear as day- as a matter of deduction- that that Woman was holding that baby with just her right arm, and I want to know how.

Wouldn't she have to wrap her arm around the baby? So, why can't we see it? So, if you want to talk about the timeline for getting Oswald placed in the Squad room of the homicide detectives by 2 PM sharp after leaving the TSBD at 12:45, we can. But, you respond to this first. How is that lady supporting the weight of that baby? How is she holding it? How is she stabilizing it? How is she able to keep it secure with just one arm that we can't even see?

A word from John McAdams:Ralph, I never follow threads that you are part of, and know I'm going to be sorry I asked this . . .

But what would be the point of putting a fake image of a woman and baby in a photo?

John Here is my response:John, you really are out of the loop. The reason to install the Woman and Baby in Towner was to authenticate the Woman and Boy in Altgens.

After all, we're talking about the north side of upper Elm St. It had what it had. If it contained a mother and child in one image, they'd have to be there in the other image, right? So, the absence of a mother and boy in the Towner film was a problem for the Altgens photo. They had to do something about it, and they did. Why'd they use a baby instead of a boy?

It's because it was a fake image, and a simplistic baby consisting of nothing but an orange bonnet and a white coat with no distinguishing characteristics otherwise was easier to fake then a well-developed boy. Remember, it was a motion picture, not a still image. The phony flicking of the mother's wrist as she is waving her raised left arm repeatedly and constantly at JFK while recklessly holding her beloved baby with just one arm, her right arm (which we have to presume she is doing since we can't actually see her right arm) is the only motion there is.

And there are differences in hair and clothing between the two women to rule out any possibility that they were the same woman. So, the kids don't match, nor do the mothers. They really don't match, and if you're going to say they are both legit, then we should see both sets of mother and child in both images. These two images cannot possibly be the same couples, and it is a death blow to the official story of the JFK assassination.